Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
outgunned. in a nine years i was mayor of san francisco, we started out with police issues being a .38 caliber revolver. we've seen that escalate. we've seen shotguns being removed from squad cars and replaced with assault weapons. why? because of an increasingly armed criminal element that police often have to go up against. i watched as the los angeles police department had to break into a gun store to take weapons to be able to counter what was going up against them following a robbery in los angeles. i don't know why anyone would object to drawing up the supply of these weapons over time. they are not good hunting weapons. many states have limits on the number of bullets again be on a clip. and who's going to respect a hunter with a 30 round clip and an assault weapon going after a dear? i certainly am not one. so the intention of this is to dry up the supply over time. while homicides in general are down in this country. mass killings are not here and the fact is that these assault weapons have a great attraction for the people who go into law as they did in san francisco, and sho
'm well on the part, as part of a team at university of california, san francisco medical school where we analyzed the medical, the social, and economic costs of each claim, and the tricare cost that i outline is part of the sort of the new and updated analysis. when we wrote "the three trillion dollar war" we came up with the number of $3 trillion no matter which way you counted it, the min -- money him you could get was to three trillion. we didn't count interest cost in that. if we had included economic costs in that amount, i mean, we could have called the book then four trillion or five trillion, in fact joe got in trouble with the publishers calling it five trillion dollar. for calling it wrong book. the minimum it could cost is four trillion. many of our costs were accurate, but the veteran's cost in particular and some of the tricare costs have grown faster than we predicted. the minimum. where the range was three to four five before -- three to five before. it's four to six. the brown cost of war study put at $6 trillion. i put at $5 trillion. at a minimum it's at least a trillio
times. once in san francisco, once in portland, oregon, once right here in washington, d.c. we finally were able to marry in canada. [cheers and applause] for 12 years, nancy suffered with metastatic cancer, and the sight of that frequent chemotherapy treatment. she died this last december. last month, nancy and i became the first lesbian or gay couple ever to receive approval to be buried together in one of our nation's national cemeteries. [cheers and applause] our country is changing, and it's my hope and expectation that other loving couples will see their union in such a way very soon. i recall during the last few months of nancy's life when she was on oxygen, she could move only with great difficulty between the bed and a couch, and she said to me, linda, some people would look at me and they would say, why do you continue this struggle wax you have no quality of life. she said, when i was younger i might have said the same thing, seeing somebody like me. but when your circumstances change, your perspective changes, too. she said, my quality of life is looking at you. my quality
. are you familiar what they're doing with in san francisco with currency assess, reaching out to employers, encourage them to do direct deposit or payroll card that meets the compass prince pills? -- principles? >> no. but that is great news. they're in an awful lot of institutions that have really encouraged their employees to either go direct deposit or they are opting for a payroll. i have to say that and thank you for saying that i was an economist at the fed. i've only been in this job for two months. that's why i think he kind of tried it do that to give me some credibility here but in my role as the fed i worked with the payroll card rules and, it was really, really important for the industry to, to get some, giveback on some of the reg e rules. like some of the monthly paper statements. david, i know you like that. let me just say when we did focus groups with people receiving payroll cards, they said, no, i don't really want a paper statement. number one, it is historical document. by the time you hit the cuttoff line and print it off and put it in the mail and mail it to me and g
town, san francisco. [cheers and applause] >> we're going to have to wait until the end of june to find out what the decision is, but all i have to say to you, before we go home and get warm, is that whatever the justices decide, we have already won the hearts and minds of the american people. [cheers and applause] >> and whatever the justices decide, you were always equal. [cheers and applause] >> you were equal in your ability to form and sustain loving relationships. we are equal in our ability to work and care for our families. we are equal in our ability to parent and foster and adopt. we are equal in our ability to serve our country, to build strong neighborhoods and healthy communities. we are equal in the eyes of god, and son we will be equal under the laws of this land! equal! justice! under law! in all 50 states, in all matters governed by civil law. that is what we're fighting for. thank you so much for being here. i love you. thank you so much. we're going to keep fighting, and we are going to win. [cheers and applause] >> we are going to win. equality! equality! equality! e
want to hold hack-a-thons in tax-heavy cities like san francisco, austin, denver and new york to forge relationships with developers and stay on the cutting edge. fourth, once our new operation is up and running, we'll embark on a data and digital road show to demonstrate what campaigns and state parties can do to enhance their own operations. the report recommended getting early buy-in from all partners. fifth, we'll upgrade as a platform, redesigning it to better utilize social media and serve an increasingly mobile audience. sixth, we're going to be setting up an rnc field office in the san francisco area. as we learned with visits to the silicon valley and conversations with top tech firms, many of the best minds are on the other side of the country. having an office there will make it easier for technologynologists -- technologists to join in our efforts and serve as a hub for our data and digital political training. by doing all of this, we'll enter 2014 and 2016 with a complete hi revitalized -- completely revitalized approach to campaign mechanics and technology. so fin
went on inside the courtroom. here in san francisco at the district trial we put that on because we wanted to show people what actually went on in that court room and to normalize it. and so we find that as we move along, the wind is at our back. it is like we're in a critical mass. you're seeing more and more states adopting it. no great britain. more countries. it will happen. it is supposed to happen. i have said this many, many times. we cannot imagine that there was a time that women could not vote. we cannot imagine that there were a time when black people could not vote. we could not imagine there was a time when black people could not marry white people. and there will be tied years from now worry will say gay marriage, what was that fossil a lot? it is going to take time and we're moving in the right direction. it is about a fundamental right. we cannot look at our fellow citizens. i could not look at jack griffin, someone i love, and say you were less of a neat. you deserve less than me. you're a second-class citizen. you cannot feel comfortable about yourself knowing that
constitution, equal protection due process clause we filed suit in the federal district court in san francisco. i could go on for a long time about this, but to get to the nuts right away, the governor and the attorney general of california determined that in their view, proposition 8 was unconstitutional, and they were going to enforce it as they were required to do wonderful law they felt, but they were not going to defend it in court. so, the proponents of proposition who had put it on the ballot and raised $40 million to get it passed in california intervened in the case. now, at that point, the attorney general and the governor was still parties to the case, they were defendants in the case said there was a case for controversy labor in force in the law and the intervenor therefore could piggyback on the standing of the actual party. when the decision came down, and we had a 12 day trial with evidence from all kinds of experts and the plaintiffs and other and vegetables the district judge found proposition 8 unconstitutional on the grounds that we have a specified at that point neither th
they have been doing in san francisco? reaching out to employers encouraging them to do direct deposits or payroll cards that meet the company? >> no, but that is great news. i think there are an awful lot of institutions that have really encouraged their employees to either go direct deposit or they are opting for a payroll. thank you for saying that i was an economist at the fed. i have only been in this job two months and that is why you do that to get me some credibility here. in my role at the fed i worked with the payroll car rules and it was really important for the industry to get some giveback on the ranking rules like the monthly paper statement. i know you like that, but let me just say when we did focus groups for people who were receiving payroll, and they said i really don't want a paper statement because number one, it is a historical document. by the time you get caught off line and put it in the mail and get it on my mailbox, i have moved on and made a bunch of other transactions. i can still see this one woman today who said me and my neighbors stand at the top of the
first being found to be guilty by a court. that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nomination simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. this is a precious american tradition and something we should not give up on easily. they say louis carroll is fiction. alice never fell down a rabbit hole and the white queen's caustic judgments are not really a threat to your security. or has america the beautiful become alice's wonderland? no, no, said the queen. sentence first; verdict afterwards. stuff and nonsense, alice said widely -- loudly. the id
thought had a brilliant future in the san francisco police department, walking down third street when a gang member walked the other way with an ak-47, opened his coat and shot him dead. how many times does this have to happen? and it happens all over. that's why the police are for this. you know, you can exempt retired police. they have been trained. they know how to use them. very different from a grievance killer. very different from jonesboro or columbine or virginia tech. very different. and the clips, the size of the clips, who needs it? i mean, what anyone respect someone with a 30 round clip going out and shooting deer? i don't think so. so the problem is, you know, i understand the right of people to want to collect these, and nothing takes any weapon away from anybody. and to prove it we exempt so many weapons. so i have a hard time understanding why our country is better off with respect to the case, i know others will argue this, but no assault weapons legislation has been struck down. my last bill went through the fourth, the sixth, the ninth, and the d.c. circuit. this b
mayor of san francisco, lieutenant governor of california, it's called citizen bill, and every single conservative in this country should read it because it is a practical textbook on all the opportunities in the information age to get rid of government and replace it with citizen activism exactly in the tocqueville the model. but it embraces the new world and the pioneers were great future that is entrapped in the past. reagan came to cpac march 1, 1975, probably most important cpac speech in his. he said quote our people look for a course to believ believe . a new and revitalized party raising a boehner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand. i believe that totally. i'm arguing that part of that clearly has to be a better future for all americans with new ideas and new solutions to take the principles of our constitution unemployment rate us as a people to great a 21st century that is extraordinary. [applause] i would encourage everybody public and in every conservative to read to assess but irving kristol in 1976, in "the wall street jou
in san francisco, city of st. francis, we knew it was inevitable all of this would have been. it is inconceivable that it would end it was our job to use whatever influence we have a t-shirt the distance between the inevitable inconceivable and i think that's what's happening at the court because of many people's courage, especially those directly personally affect did. yesterday i had one of the attendees, senator barkley now, the first openly gay ambassador in their public service spot beside. so it's pretty exciting. but i chose you on health care is offline. you keep reminding me. [laughter] >> without opening day next friday. we can start all over again. [inaudible] >> let me just say this about that question because when you get the soundtrack comments that were calling it? the audio -- [laughter] soundtrack of the supreme court. you're too young. anyway -- [laughter] what was really interesting to me was to hear clemency spokesperson for doma. what is still role to play on life. nonetheless. when he was up there, the houses standing on this issue because those the blac
and you live in san francisco or houston or seattle and someone says you are a member of al qaeda, shouldn't you get a chance to defend yourself? shouldn't you get to go to court? shouldn't you get a rawr? are these not -- a lawyer? are these not things that we would want in our country? ackerman goes on. he says there is a subtlety at work in the justice department framework. it takes imminence out of the context of something an enemy does and places it in the context of a policymaker's epistemic limitations. we are not looking to see if someone has a rocket launcher on their shoulder. we are saying because we think that these people don't like us and will continue to attack us that we can preemptively kill them. realize that this kind of logic is being used overseas, and that's debatable, but now they are going to bring this logic to america. so when you read stuff like this that imminence is out of the equation and in its place we're going to put a policymaker's epistemic limitations or estimations, that's how we're going to decide who is going to be killed in america? all we know is wh
friend joe cox and i think nancy pelosi, san francisco and you have the idea. so i think in a sense, i take the 2012 election result as kind of come as less of an enthusiastic endorsement of barack obama and more as a grudging acquiescence in his presidency. but on the republican side one has to say that the republicans do not have republican leaning voters, did not have the advantage in compared balance of enthusiasm that they had in the 2010 off your election. that simply was absent, insufficient numbers. i don't believe that the obama campaign actually met their numbers. that is to say, i don't think they turned out as many people as they thought might be necessary to win. but it did turn out as many people as it turned out to be necessary to win and win florida with its 20 electoral votes by 1% of the vote. one of the interesting things about 2012 is that the presidential level, the numbers look like, a fair lot like 2008, particularly and the target states, reflecting the comparative advantage that the obama campaign had internet. as you get down the ballot, the numbers look incre
,000. $42,000 per person. new york city's about $39,000. san francisco, $35,000. so the point of this amendment is to put state and local governments on notice that the federal government will not be here to bail you out. you need to get your own fiscal house in order. the third amendment that i intend to offer has to do with recognizing the truth of the situation with our entitlement programs. you know, at the current level, at the current path neither social security nor medicare are sustainable. so this amendment is also very simple amendment, establishes a point of order that requires in any budget resolution that we reform both social security and medicare to create 75-year solvency. again, i think that's pretty reasonable. let me just describe why i think it's so important. i frequently here all kinds of people claim that social security is solvent to the year 2035 or the year 2038. it's a moving target. let's take a look at the true picture in terms of the social security financial balance sheet. this comes right from the social security administration. this is looking
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16